Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyathus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:56, 7 April 2009 [1].

Cyathus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria, and I'd really like to adorn it with the illustrious symbol of quality, the bronze star. The article passed GAC without much fanfare, and has been subsequently substantially improved with the help of a number of great suggestions at peer review. This is the first of what I hope will be many FAC submissions from me. With the help of these stacks of mycology books and journal articles piled around me, and a coffee machine, I am ready and willing to supplement the existing information, or massage the text to assuage the idiosyncrasies of any reviewer who wishes to read and comment. Thanks in advance. Sasata (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (P.S. I'm in the WikiCup)[reply]

  • All right then... (rolls up sleeves) let's see what we can find....Casliber (talk ·contribs) 04:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some prose issues in lede to start of with...

    • I'd bold 'bird's nest fungi' in lede as it is a (vernacular) synonym. As is "splash cups"
Bolded. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The 45 widely distributed species of Cyathus are also.. - bolded bit (I think) is redundant.
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • wikt link for 'plicate' and 'striate'
Done, although plication was as close as I could get for plicate. Perhaps I'll add a direct definition for plicate in wiktionary later. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally considered inedible, Cyathus species are saprobic, feeding on decomposing organic matter, and as such are usually found growing on decaying wood or woody debris, on cow and horse dung, or directly on humus-rich soil. - has 4 commas - I'd split after 'saprobic' and slot in a semicolon I think.
Sentence jigged. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: All images licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 or are in public domain, so everything seems good on that front. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TEcH Review
  • Dabs need to be fixed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • ..are up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links are up to speed (checked with the links checker tool)
  • Ref formatting (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script) is not up to speed
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear in the ref section as such, use a ref name instead
  • There is one ref that is blank and has no content, that needs to be fixed
  • Brodie p. 150.
  • {{cite journal |author=Allbutt AD, Ayer WA, Brodie HJ, Johri BN, Taube H. |title=Cyathin, a new antibiotic complex produced by ''Cyathus helenae'' |journal=Canadian Journal of Microbiology |volume=17 |issue=11 |pages=1401–7 |year=1971 |month=|pmid=5156938 |doi= |url=}}
  • The following ref names are given to more than one ref, it should only name 1 ref
  • Brodie150
  • Tulasne1844
  • White1902
  • Lloyd1906
  • pmid5156938
  • pmid18083129--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix dabs and dup references (I hope). I think the problem for some of them was that I wasn't using the forward-slash-terminated named tags, but instead using </ref> to terminate them. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS#Images and WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues with images throughout (images go in sections, not above them, and check punctuation on setnence fragments). There is susbstantial unnecessary chunking up of the article size and text in edit mode with empty parameters on the cite templates; these should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unchunked and shaved as requested. Hope it's ok now. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • References in non-English languages (even the offine ones) need to note the language they are in.
  • Current ref 10 needs a page number. Also right now it's "Brodie Birds Nest Fungi" which is a different format than the rest of the references to this book.
  • I had done it this way for a reason; the article text makes reference to the fact that a monograph was written about the genus, and I wanted to give reference to the book, but a specific page number is not required. Should I just change the reference to "Brodie."? I didn't think this was the proper solution, because I use several of his other publications as sources. Advice on how to best handle this specific case would be appreciated. (Maybe "Brodie, 1975." ?) Sasata (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for that then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I passed this article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support After all my haranguing, the editor has masterfully improved the article in response to my queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) At my FAC you asked for comments on this one. Here they are: Oppose Weak Oppose Neutral I found the article to be deficient in explaining very basic information from the perspective of the unschooled reader of this topic. After reading the WP:LEAD, I found myself wondering the following:[reply]

  • The LEAD is now robust enough that I can convince myself that the article might contain everything I want to learn about this subject. I am a slow reader so it may take me a few days to figure out if everything I hope to see is included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the natural habitat for this genus? I.E., where does it naturally occur? Has it been transplanted elsewhere? E.G., does it occur here in North America? Shouldn't there be a map describing where it is commonly found? The places I expected to find the information, Cyathus#Habitat_and_distribution and Cyathus#Spore_dispersal, did not explain this.
  • I've expanded the sentence in the lead that dealt with distribution, and added a fair bit to the habitat and distribution section to more thoroughly cover this aspect. I didn't bother putting in a distribution map, because collectively the genus' distribution is worldwide. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the lifecycle for this genus? Does it live for 5 days, 5 months, 5 years? Is it an annual or perennial? Cyathus#Life_cycle told me nothing?
  • Have added info about the length of the life cycle. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, but this is not my field. You have told me how long it takes to become a fruiting body. Should I understand this to mean they fruit once and die or is it like producing acorns or Pears every year?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope I've clarified this in the life cycle section now. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are going to have to be patient with me. I am not understanding what a generation is for these things. Can they produce 10 new generations of fruiting bodies a year or one every ten years. Also, it seems like meiosis is single parent as if two different sperm (analogy) fuse or something. Did I understand this correctly or did I miss a pollination explanation?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the linked phrase mating compatibility groups for details on the sex life of fungi; I really don't want the Life cycle section to get more bloated than it already is. My reasoning for not going into this further is explained below. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was deliberately vague, but I've added the following sentence in the Habitat and Distribution section: "The appearance of fruiting bodies is largely dependent upon features of the immediate growing environment; specifically, optimum conditions of temperature, moisture, and nutrient availability are more important factors for fruiting rather than the broad geographical area in which the fungi are located, or the season."
  • I added the sentence "The dikaryotic mycelia from which the fruiting bodies are produced is long lasting, and will continue to produce successive generations of fruiting bodies as long as the environmental conditions are favorable." This is about as specific as I can get, I can't find any source that states exactly how long the mycelia of Cyathus can live, although it's relatively common knowledge (among mycologists, of course) that in comparable species (i.e. other Basidiomycetes), this may be several years or longer, until the wood fully decomposes. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I ask if you have clarified the lifespan I think what I meant to ask is what is a common life expectancy? Isn't life expectancy a basic element of a FA for these types of things? Then I also want an explanation of this things durability. If I knock it off the wood it is on will it re-root and grow in place or will it die. Can you kill it by chopping off the head or not? I don't think you responded to that unless I missed it in all the big words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to balance your desire to know everything about this fungus' lifestyle with violating the summary style criterion. Some of the questions you seek answers to are best answered in articles dealing more with basic fungal biology. For example, I could put in a section explaining how the fungus degrades dead plant material, eventually breaking this plant material into humus and other nutrients that can be used by other organisms, thus fitting in with the global carbon cycle. But the problem is that this process is not unique to Cyathus, but rather all saprobic fungi; that term is linked so the interested reader may read about this process in a more appropriate article. As for the lifespan question, I can't give a simple answer. I previously put in the statement: "The dikaryotic myelia from which the fruiting bodies are produced is long lasting, and will continue to produce successive generations of fruiting bodies as long as the environmental conditions are favorable." I think this covers your question adequately enough: if the mycelia is colonizing a big log, it'll probably have a lifespan measured in years, and will produce fruiting bodies throughout the year as long as the temp and moisture is right. If the mycelia has colonized a small woodchip, it may only produce one flush of fruiting bodies before it runs out of nutrients. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the headchopping thing think about a reader wondering if I run this thing over with my lawnmower, would I kill it or cause it to proliferate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have no heads :) Most are less than a cm tall, so you'd miss them with your lawnmower. If you picked all the fruiting bodies off a piece of dead wood, the mycelia in the wood wouldn't care, it would produce more fruiting bodies when the time was right. If you took a fruiting body and chopped it in half, it would dry out and die. If you took that chopped piece, put it flush against another piece of moist, dead wood, under the right environmental conditions (eg. temp and moisture), it might start colonizing the new dead wood, and begin its life cycle anew. However, this applies for any mushroom, hence my reluctance to go into this level of detail here. Readers who want to know this stuff can click on links like hyphae, mycelia, vegetative reproduction to get answers to these questions. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you picked all the fruiting bodies off a piece of dead wood, the mycelia in the wood wouldn't care, it would produce more fruiting bodies when the time was right." seem to be a fact worth knowing to me. It seems there might be lingo that you could use to put this before the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it for a while, but decided not to put anything more in the article about this. The life cycle section has already ballooned (mushroomed?) into one of the largest sections of the article, and much of it deals with basic biological information that is not specific to the genus Cyathus. Yes, I agree it's a fact worth knowing, but I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated in this article, as it applies to every mushroom species. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it endangered? I saw no comments on its proliferation? Even if such information is rendered at the species level, you should tell me if any species are endangered.
  • Only one species seems to be mentioned on any Red Lists, so that info is now in the Habitat and Distribution section. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, there are no other genus FA's (expect for dinosaur genera), so I don't have much to compare to. The only comparable article I could find was Galerina (a GA), so I copied that taxobox format. I will also add the info to the appropriate species article. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galerina is a three-year old GA. Standards have risen. I am going to WP:GAR it later tonight for two reasons. First, its WP:LEAD was more deficient than yours was when I gave my original opinion. Second, the most common reason I GAR articles is a belated complaint against your article as well. I do not support any articles for GA that do not have all or almost all paragraphs with at least one citation. Each paragraph is suppose to have a relatively distinct thought and should have at least one citation. Please make sure your article is structured so that each of your paragraphs has at least one citation. I don't think this should be too difficult because you only have a couple main body paragraphs without any citations. I guess I am saying don't use it as a model.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added citations to general mycology texts for the new info added to the life cycle section. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have responded to your criticisms of the Galerina article. Some points are well-taken, however, I find the majority of them to be mycologically naive and simply not applicable to an article on non-cultivated fungi. I think this is also true of some of the critiques you raise concerning the Cyathus article. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look at Talk:Galerina/GA1 in the next few days. I apologize. Yes, I am not a mycologist. I am just a guy who took Biology (advance, honors or A.P. - I don't remember but I was good in the sciences over 25 years ago). When I decided not to be Pre-med, I think I stopped studying mid-course and have forgotten everything. Yes, I am "naive" on the subject. But the article is improving here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we have no model, let's just consider the average reader. One of the first things I want to know about a biological classification is whether it is rare and whether it is thriving. Something such as the following should be in the lead such as Genus X has # species. Of theses species X# are rare, Y# are endagnered and the rest are not known to be less than "safe" as of sources current on MMM YYYY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've mentioned the one locally endangered species in the lead, readers can get more info in the article text or (eventually, once I put it in there) the species article. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A genus as a whole cannot really be "endangered" as such, and so it does not belong in the taxobox, which is as close to an infobox as you are going to get. I agree that information about the number of species and the rarity of various species may have a place in the article, but I would argue that it is probably not worthy of the lead, and certainly not worthy of a taxobox. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is its place in the food chain. I.E., are there any species or genuses that thrive on this genus? Does it typically feed off of a genus or species that it helps kill or helps live?
  • I'm not sure I can add much more to what I have already without bordering on OR. Essentially, it's known that various species feed on dead wood or dung, but I haven't found any studies that investigate this more fully. As for organisms that thrive on this genus, there's one report from 1938 describing how a bird's nest fungus was parasitized by another fungus, but that association seems to have been non-specific, and wasn't recorded (to my knowledge) again in the literature. Brodie in his monograph writes of evidence that snails might consume the fungus, but its only circumstantial (i.e. he didn't see it directly, there were chewed up fungi and snails nearby). I can put this info in if you really think it's vital. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. so it commonly thrives on decomposing, dead or decaying matter. Does it secrete decomposition aids? Does it somehow aid the process. Is there a byproduct of the decomposition process that they gain nourishment from. I guess you can not technically call it a parasite because it does not thrive on living matter, but it seems to thrive on types of matter. I do not understand why. Is it unable to compete with living matter for nourishment and relegated to decomposing matter? Are you talking about living fibrous shells or dead. Be clear in the text because these nuts and such seem possibly to be one of the few living hosts if I am reading this right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially reluctant to go into this, as some of the questions you're asking about are applicable to thousands of fungal species, and I thought it was more appropriate for a different article. But I now realize this stuff should be mentioned here to make this article more complete. So I've expanded the life cycle section, and I think I've covered (if only briefly) the aspects you asked about, like secretion of enzymes that help it digest wood components, and mention of persistent dikarytotic mycelia from which fruiting bodies are formed.
  • I am still somewhat reluctant to strike this point. Here is my problem. O.K. we know it like to digest certain sugars that attract its colonies. That sort of gives us one direction of the food chain. However, on the other end you only tell us about whether humans eat it. It lives in bird nests I think you said. Do birds eat it. It is found on dead matter. Do foragers of living matter eat it as a primary nutrient or scavengers of dead matter eat it as a complement or substitute to their nurishment?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I had answered this before... Brodie noted that snails may eat the fungus, but evidence was circumstantial. The fungus does not live in bird's nests, it has the common name bird's nest fungus because of its appearance (stated in the lead). Birds do not eat it (well, they might, but no-one has noticed or written that in print). Its place in the food chain is that it's saprobic; I did add this (linked) word again in the life cycle section. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not support this with my basic understanding of the topic in anything resembling its current state.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean when you say "especially older specimens that may have external features worn off". You never describe stuff wearing off. Does the ectoperidium go bald with age. What wears off?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified by stating: "... especially older, weathered specimens of Cyathus that may have the hairy ectoperidium worn off." Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you clarified whether the "fibrous material like coconut, jute" is from elements no longer organically connected to the tree by having fallen or do they grow on cocunuts while on the tree?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latter part of that sentence now reads "... like coconut, jute, or hemp fiber woven into matting, sacks or cloth." Please let me know if I can make it clearer than that. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no illustrations of Mycelia? I still do not understand what they are. Are they the green stuff beneath the fruiting body of the main image or are those hyphae?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those questions are application to all mushroom species, and you can see images of them in their respective articles (I just added a pic of mycelium to its article). Basically, the hyphae is a single filament, the mycelium is a larger mass of interwoven hyphae. (I'm not exactly sure what the green stuff is in the taxobox picture, but I'd guess some kind of bryophyte (moss)). Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After introducing the terms "infection, spread, and survival" use them later where relevant just like germinate. I don't see these later phases because I don't know what to look for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "infection" because although technically correct (using the definition "An uncontrolled growth of harmful microorganisms in a host."), its also potentially ambiguous. I've now used the remaining introductory terms in the paragraph. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will an hour of light a day suffice or do they need 8 hours. Saying that they need light does nto tell me much. If you have any details it would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added more detail. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing it. Where?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Continuous light is not required for fruiting body development; after the mycelium has reached a certain stage of maturity, only a brief exposure to light is necessary, and fruiting bodies will form if even subsequently kept in the dark." Sasata (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why the spores do not get digested as they pass through the digestive tract.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a couple sentences about the fate of peridioles and spores. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the Bioactive compounds section is not clear to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are unique biochemicals produced only by this genus, some with antibacterial, antioxidant, or potential medicinal properties; I didn't think this article could be considered complete without at least mentioning this info. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand these splash cups. Do they always open to the point of convexity as pictured in one illustration or are some of them fully open although concave?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mature fruiting bodies are fully open, and depicted as "A" in the first diagram, beside the immature, closed fruiting body. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with File:Cyathus poeppigii.jpg. Why is it convex?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe it just appears convex because the photo was taken from straight above and from that perspective it lacks some visual cues to show that it's actually concave. I can remove it if you like (or replace it with another picture of something more obviously concave). Sasata (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to change your oppose. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this have a {{mycomorphbox}} somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mycomorphboxes are better suited for species-level articles, and for mushrooms with a more "typical" shape. I could put one in, it would look like this (I don't think it's useful here): I put it in the article, per the WikiProject Fungi's guidelines. (But I'm not a fan). Sasata (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these things survive prolonged sub-freezing temperatures?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fruiting bodies probably wouldn't make it, but the mycelia would just lay dormant until conditions were favorable for fruiting again (this is the case for all mushrooms). Sasata (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source that and add it to the article.

How about elevation. Do these survive above the tree line.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't generalize for the whole genus, but I did add in some specific examples to address the latest two points: "Examples of the ability of Cyathus to thrive in somewhat inhospitable environments are shown by C. striatus and C. stercoreus, which can survive the drought and cold of winter in temperate North America,[19] and the species C. helenae, which has been found growing on dead alpine plants at an altitude of 7,000 feet (2,100 m).[20]"
If these can survive at a high altitude, I need another question answered. Are these not like green plants that need CO2 to produce Oxygen. Can you describe air composition needs and uses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously don't have any Chlorophyll. I am just trying to get an understanding of their activity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is another question dealing with mushroom biology, and I don't think needs to be discussed here. I don't think there have been any studies dealing with "air composition" in relation to Cyathus. It's a very valid question when dealing with lichens, as many are pollution sensitive and will only thrive in clean air, but it doesn't apply to this genus. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn

I reviewed the article at peer review a couple of weeks ago, and all issues raised there have been dealt with. These are some issues I have spotted on this reading.

  • If Cyathus striatus is the type species, shouldn't it be a picture of that in the taxobox? Alternatively, a picture/collage of several species may be more informative.
  • I thought the C. stercoreus pic looked nicer, but yeah, the type should probably be in there. Changed. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decomposing organic matter (they are saprobic)." Why the italics? Also, isn't this a little redundant? Would you say "Lions feed on meat (they are carnivores)"?
  • (Ignore if I asked you last time...) "paper by J. Schmitz," First name, if known?
  • I tried, but could not find the full first name. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Harold J. Brodie in 1975.[10]" Perhaps it would be better to reference someone other than Brodie regarding the publication/significance of his book?
  • Actually, the reference is merely to the book's existence as a monograph about the genus, so it should be ok. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entwined with bits of the underlying" 'bits' seems a little informal.
  • Changed to "small fragments". Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "G.W. Martin in 1924,[24] and later elaborated by Buller, who used Cyathus striatus as the model species to experimentally investigate the phenomenon.[25] Buller's major conclusions about spore dispersal were later summarized by his graduate student Brodie" Full names? We have Buller's on his article. No need to link Brodie, as he's mentioned above.
  • "C. helenae, C. africanus and C. earlei.[29][30][31][32]" As a footnote lover, I'm surprised I'm saying this, but are they all needed? As each one of them is only used to reference that one statement, perhaps they could be made into one footnote, listing all three with bullet points? That would probably be better than removing any of them.
  • I've reduced the citation clumping by citing more specifically immediately after the respective species. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an article could be written at Cyathin? Is there enough in the sources?
  • Yes, there is enough info to warrant a separate article. Will start it sometime soon. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the section title "agricultural". How about "agriculture"? The other two subsections are nouns, seems strange that this one is an adjective.
  • "cybrodol (derived from humulene),[37] nidulol, and bullerone." Have we articles on any of those chemicals? What are they? Are they exclusively linked to this genus?
  • No articles on these compounds; yes they are specific to this genus. I could start these articles too, but I don't think they'd be much more than stubs. Sasata (talk)
  • Probably not worth it- perhaps you could expand on what they are here, and mention that they are genus specific? Do they have any uses? J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified in the intro sentence for that section that these compounds are Cyathus specific. I couldn't find any application for these metabolites, other than a 1981 paper describing their total synthesis, but they don't seem to be mentioned again in the literature. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the brothers Tulasne" How about "the Tulasne brothers"? The former sounds a little archaic.
  • Noting TonyTheTiger's comments above, I feel the food chain issue could be expanded on. The fact it's only mentioned briefly in the lead isn't great- it may even deserve its own section within the article.

Hope that helps. Feel free to chop up/strike out my comments as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, now that two waves of my comments and TonyTheTiger's concerns have all been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise as WP:fungi member) fulfils criteria. prose good, comprehensive, nothing obvious left to improve - over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Sasata (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (part 2) File:Cyathus striatus Buller.jpg - We need a death date for W. G. Smith to establish life of the author plus 70 years. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington G. Smith (1837-1917), info from Ainsworth CG. (1976). A History of Mycology. Cambridge University Press. p. 347. I'll add his death year to the file info. Sasata (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cyathus&oldid=1138458320"